What is the best way to get Chinese to stop worrying about the environmental and social impacts of the massive Three Gorges Dam project, which dammed the Yangtze River? Simple, says the Chinese government, just don’t let the folks see Avatar, lest they find similarities between the Na’vi being forced from their “Home Tree” and the 1.24 million Chinese who were forced to relocate when the land above the dam was flooded to form a reservoir.

The Communist Party got so jittery about the movie, it pulled it off almost 1600 2-D screens throughout the country and replaced it with Confucius, a domestically produced biopic about the renowned Chinese philosopher.

Hm. I wonder if anyone from those 50 environmental groups that took out the ad against the tar sands development has actually spoken to any of the Canadian natives whose environment they’re trying to save?

John Ralston Saul, in “A Fair Country”, has answered this with a “no”, and goes on to state that the natives actually want tar sands development for the jobs it will bring – but not in the way that the oil companies are currently going about it. They want to the jobs and economic prosperity, but they also want to see more care taken not to spoil the environment while doing it. For them, their land is where they live, and once the tar sands are depleted and the oil companies go away, the natives will still be there living on the land. So they want to see good stewardship of the land coupled with the exploitation of the resource.

Saul’s comment about the environmental groups arguing for zero development of the tar sands is that this is just more of the paternalistic “we know what’s best for you” attitude toward the natives.

Maybe these groups should actually send someone up north and ask the natives what they want. Oh, but wait, if the natives actually want tar sands development, that’s because they’re being seduced by the evils of modern society and aren’t wise enough and mature enough to say no. [/sarcasm]

Woody Tanaka

JMW

Rather than being paternalistic, these groups are being realistic. The people who despoil the land and the environment in order to get obscene private wealth exploiting public resources are, if history is any guide, never interested in seeing that more care is taken during their raping of the environment, to protect the environment. Cuts into the holy of holies — corporate profits.

kelly

There are 8,000 in the Dongria Kondh tribe of Orissa, India and 30,000 employees in the Vedanta corporation.

Vedanta has built an illegal aluminum plant on Kondh grounds and the pollution is ruining the people’s health. Indian courts have ruled against Vedanta repeatededly, yet Vedanta is moving ahead with new strip mining and intends to increase aluminum production over 400% by 2013.

For good reason, the Kondh are fighting for their lives.

Meanwhile, Vedanta provides NO data to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

I suggest that all people have access to technological progress, but here is the key: they must be able to have it on their own terms.

Where I depart from Survival International’s stance is on its claim that ‘progress can kill’; they are not defining ‘progress’ very clearly.

Progress that a community wants and needs can be achieved, but it must be done using that community’s resources and people as much as humanly possible, and it must be ultimately driven by that community. Those of us with more money and resources should only stand by to give the aid we are asked to give when we are asked to give it.

NGOs have a place and are necessary, but I think they are overstepping certain boundaries and not letting the people they serve drive their actions.

Katharine

Also, the Chinese government is made up of wusses.

Aidan

Katharine:

It’s not clear how you depart from Survival International’s stance. ‘Progress can kill’ specifically warns that development can, in some cases, threaten tribal peoples. That does not necessarily mean all development.

Survival recognises that development projects, when endorsed and guided by tribal peoples, can be positive. It’s just there’s a lot to be said about the harmful kind.

What makes you suggest that an NGO like Survival fails to put the people they serve in the driving seat? The film embedded here, Mine, takes the testimony and opinion of numerous members of the tribe as the basis for the argument. Surely there’s no clearer illustration of the people leading the way?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/ Eliza Strickland

Here’s another one: An environmental group on Vancouver Island, Canada has named a patch of old-growth forest “Avatar Grove” in hopes of preventing logging there.

http://TwoSistersArtandSoul Lisette Root

Travelling ever forward on our journey through conciousness, towards relentless night, will we extinguish the flame of life one second before the universe does it for us? Yes, for ours is a race of fools madly blindly rushing towards destruction, for money.

http://casseywatson.xanga.com Adriane Grzegorek

I like the Avatar 3D film, especially the story line, not solely it brings a totally new sensation but inspiring thoughts of humanity. I heard the New Avatar 2 is comming soon, cannot wait to see it again…!

http://theindiaphile.com piers

Vedanta is a classic example of big business taking advantage of tribal peoples for its own gain. Well done Survival International